Charleen Hsuan1, Thomas M Braun2, Ninez A Ponce3, Geoffrey J Hoffman4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Administration, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. chsuan@psu.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Administration, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Systems, Populations and Leadership, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To address concerns that the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) unfairly penalized safety net hospitals treating patients with high social and functional risks, Medicare recently modified HRRP to compare hospitals with similar proportions of high-risk, dual-eligible patients ("peer group hospitals"). Whether the change fully accounts for patients' social and functional risks is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) and hospital penalties after adding patient-level social and functional and community-level risk factors. DESIGN: Using 2000-2014 Medicare hospital discharge, Health and Retirement Study, and community-level data, latent factors for patient social and functional factors and community factors were identified. We estimated RSRRs for peer groups and by safety net status using four hierarchical logistic regression models: "base" (HRRP model); "patient" (base plus patient factors); "community" (base plus community factors); and "full" (all factors). The proportion of hospitals penalized was calculated by safety net status. PATIENTS: 20,255 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (65+) with eligible index hospitalizations MAIN MEASURES: RSRRs KEY RESULTS: Half of safety net hospitals are in peer group 5. Compared with other hospitals, peer group 5 hospitals (most dual-eligibles) treated sicker, more functionally limited patients from socially disadvantaged groups. RSRRs decreased by 0.7% for peer groups 2 and 4 and 1.3% for peer group 5 under the patient and full (versus base) models. Measured performance improved after adjusting for patient risk factors for hospitals in peer group 4 and 5 hospitals, but worsened for those in peer groups 1, 2, and 3. Under the patient (versus base) model, fewer safety net hospitals (48.7% versus 51.3%) but more non-safety net hospitals (50.0% versus 49.1%) were penalized. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level risk adjustment decreased RSRRs for hospitals serving more at-risk patients and proportion of safety net hospitals penalized, while modestly increasing RSRRs and proportion of non-safety net hospitals penalized. Results suggest HRRP modifications may not fully account for hospital variation in patient-level risk.
BACKGROUND: To address concerns that the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) unfairly penalized safety net hospitals treating patients with high social and functional risks, Medicare recently modified HRRP to compare hospitals with similar proportions of high-risk, dual-eligible patients ("peer group hospitals"). Whether the change fully accounts for patients' social and functional risks is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) and hospital penalties after adding patient-level social and functional and community-level risk factors. DESIGN: Using 2000-2014 Medicare hospital discharge, Health and Retirement Study, and community-level data, latent factors for patient social and functional factors and community factors were identified. We estimated RSRRs for peer groups and by safety net status using four hierarchical logistic regression models: "base" (HRRP model); "patient" (base plus patient factors); "community" (base plus community factors); and "full" (all factors). The proportion of hospitals penalized was calculated by safety net status. PATIENTS: 20,255 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (65+) with eligible index hospitalizations MAIN MEASURES: RSRRs KEY RESULTS: Half of safety net hospitals are in peer group 5. Compared with other hospitals, peer group 5 hospitals (most dual-eligibles) treated sicker, more functionally limited patients from socially disadvantaged groups. RSRRs decreased by 0.7% for peer groups 2 and 4 and 1.3% for peer group 5 under the patient and full (versus base) models. Measured performance improved after adjusting for patient risk factors for hospitals in peer group 4 and 5 hospitals, but worsened for those in peer groups 1, 2, and 3. Under the patient (versus base) model, fewer safety net hospitals (48.7% versus 51.3%) but more non-safety net hospitals (50.0% versus 49.1%) were penalized. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level risk adjustment decreased RSRRs for hospitals serving more at-risk patients and proportion of safety net hospitals penalized, while modestly increasing RSRRs and proportion of non-safety net hospitals penalized. Results suggest HRRP modifications may not fully account for hospital variation in patient-level risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
readmissions; safety net hospitals; social risk
Authors: Qian Gu; Lane Koenig; Jennifer Faerberg; Caroline Rossi Steinberg; Christopher Vaz; Mary P Wheatley Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jeph Herrin; Justin St Andre; Kevin Kenward; Maulik S Joshi; Anne-Marie J Audet; Stephen C Hines Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Karen E Joynt Maddox; Mat Reidhead; Jianhui Hu; Amy J H Kind; Alan M Zaslavsky; Elna M Nagasako; David R Nerenz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jennifer Meddings; Heidi Reichert; Shawna N Smith; Theodore J Iwashyna; Kenneth M Langa; Timothy P Hofer; Laurence F McMahon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Monica S Aswani; Meredith L Kilgore; David J Becker; David T Redden; Bisakha Sen; Justin Blackburn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Teresa L Rogstad; Shweta Gupta; John Connolly; William H Shrank; Eric T Roberts Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 9.048
Authors: Charleen Hsuan; Alexis Zebrowski; Michelle P Lin; David G Buckler; Brendan G Carr Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 2.908